Simply not true. I suggest you read:
Posted on 09/22/2016 7:34:49 PM PDT by marshmallow
A meeting between Pope Francis and Cardinal Claudio Hummes has touched off speculation that the Pope might support a move to allow the ordination of married men as priests.
Cardinal Hummes, the former prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, has indicated his support for a discussion of allowing married priests in areas where the shortage of clergy is particularly acute, such as in the Amazon region of his native Brazil.
Sandro Magister, the veteran Vatican-watcher for L'Espresso, reports rumors in Rome that Pope Francis intends to devote the next meeting of the Synod of Bishops to discussion of the clergy: a topic that would allow for debate on the issue of celibacy.
Not Enough Celibate Priests? Make Way For Married Priests (L'Espresso)
My answer is already in my original post.
Now explain to me and everyone else why Paul did not demand Peter not be a leader of the church, as he was married.
Explain why in Cor 1 9:5 Paul also mentions that “other apostles” and “the brothers of the Lord” had wives. Because being married was so important in Jewish culture, it is logical to assume that most, or all of the disciples were married. Explain why he does not tell them to drop out of leadership positions in the churches.
I have apparently failed to communicate to you broader existential threats to you, your family and faith.
Facts:
The RCC is in steady decline (see numbers below).
Why?
So much so, hundreds of RC churches in Europe, Canada and the US have been sold off.
Why?
Many of them have been converted to Mosques.
Why?
RCC programming, dogma and strawman arguments are near impossible to counter, even with facts, rationale and WWJD framework.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different (improved) outcome.
Carry on, while you can.
I thought y'all already do that. At least that is what several Freeper Catholics have said.
New?
They used to be able to get married.
It would simply be going back to an earlier practice of the church. It wasn’t wrong then. Why would it be now?
And it certainly would open up a whole new pool of much needed men for the ministry.
Teaching that goes against what God instructed us in HIS word.
1 Corinthians 7:1-5 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
Qualifications for elder and deacon.
1 Corinthians 5:1-13 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
That precludes taking communion with someone like that.
2 John 1:4-11 I rejoiced greatly to find some of your children walking in the truth, just as we were commanded by the Father. And now I ask you, dear lady—not as though I were writing you a new commandment, but the one we have had from the beginning—that we love one another. And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, so that you should walk in it. For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.
Titus 1:5-16 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth. To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.
1 Timothy 3:1-13 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
If there were more priests, they could share the work and wouldn't be so overwhelmed.
Then that excuse for an unmarried priesthood would be gone.
Simply not true. I suggest you read:
So the fact that every single liberal element in the Catholic Church is invariably all for ending the discipline of celibacy gives you no pause? Not to mention every single liberal group outside the Church.
Freegards
The fixation on this topic is tedious and futile when weighed against much broader RCC issues.
This is your matter as a believer.
Suggest believers pray to Jesus and earnestly ask what should be done.
It’s likely he’ll say kick the money changers out of the temple along with the celebrity marxist anti-pope and hierarchy, sell off the ill-gotten gold, repent and start anew.
But you already know that.
All the best with ever declining membership, churches converting to mosques, and a future under Sharia law...
Pax.
“The fixation on this topic is tedious and futile when weighed against much broader RCC issues.”
Yeah. The discipline of celibacy is just one more thing the libs want to change.
Freegards
My family also has several priest friends, and I totally agree with your assessment.
I’ve even asked a couple of them about this very subject. Each one of them answered the same way: “I don’t know how I’d be able to do it while trying to be a husband and a father.”
My parish has 4000 families. Not 4000 people, 4000 families. The priests of our parish are on-the-go around the clock. Sick calls. Last rites. Wakes. Funerals. Bible study. Mass preparation. Parish committees. Blood drives. Wedding prep classes. Confessions (including people calling the rectory to make appointments for Confessions). Catholic school activities. Christmas pageant rehearsals. I could go on and on.
We had one of our priest friends over for dinner in June. It took six months to finally get him to the house — our simple little dinner had to be postponed at least 10 times because Father kept getting called away for emergencies.
“All consuming” is exactly the right phrase. You nailed it.
Regards,
Certainly not the Anglican leadership which has opened its arms to female priests many of whom are homosexual.
According to the First Epistle to the Corinthians of Paul;
who was celibate; ‘Apostles like all other Christians, have a right to be married and their families supported by the communities in which they work’.
In the earliest days of the Catholic Church, the clergy who were usually elderly, were married. No offense but obviously we agree to disagree.
There is no question that Peter and many, if not all, of the other Apostles were married. Celibacy was not practiced by the Jews and so there would not have been many unmarried men to recruit. But this does not imply that the Church does not have the right to restrict those whom she calls to the priesthood to celibate men. Paul and our Lord himself praised the practice.
In the earliest days of the Catholic Church, the clergy who were usually elderly, were married.
The historical record does not support that, at least in the West. You would learn that if you were to read Father Cochini's book. Even in the East priest must be married before they are ordained deacons. Once ordained they cannot marry. Nor were the clergy necessarily elderly. In his letter to the Magnesians, Saint Ignatius of Antioch wrote: "It becomes you not to presume on the youth of the bishop."
Good luck finding a boys' choir in a Catholic church.
Agreed that Catholic Church has an absolute right to its rules, all of which are imposed for very moral and sound reasons.
As for an older Priesthood, that is where the 3rd century label ‘Elder’ originated, implying those who were no longer sexually active. Cochini’s opinion is his own and him being a Jesuit, I have little regard for it.
The great orders ,the Augustinians, Benedictines, Dominicans, Franciscans; among others; produced, great and original minds, while the Jesuits largely produced opinionated radicals.
Before I get too far, what translation is that?
1 Cor. 7 6-9
“But I speak this by indulgence,not by commandment. For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: it is good for them if they so continue, even as I. But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than be burnt.”
Oh. I meant alter boys, didn’t I?
As for Fr. Cochini's book, the evidence that he gives speaks for itself. The idea that the celibate priesthood was a 10th century invention is a gratuitous assumption that has no basis in historical facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.